Skip to content

Dwight Howard jawed at Kobe about defensive rotations

Dec 6, 2012, 2:23 PM EDT

Kobe Bryant, Dwight Howard AP

We need to start with this on the table — Dwight Howard is in the right here.

Watch the last few minutes of the Lakers loss to the Houston Rockets and you will see Kobe Bryant out of position then taking a bad angle on his help rotation, which is too late as Toney Douglas drains a corner three. Watch the first half of the Lakers in in New Orleans and you will see Kobe missing rotations and leaving Robin Lopez wide open.

But to call Kobe out on it? In public? The undisputed team leader and face of the franchise? Not a lot of guys would have the stones.

Dwight Howard did.

From the amazing Kevin Ding of the Orange County Register:

“I don’t have a problem with saying anything to anybody, and it should be that way,” Howard said after the Lakers’ victory over New Orleans. “We have to be able to talk to each other. We’re a team. We’re a family. And the more chemistry we develop that way, the better we’ll be as a team….”

(Midway through the first quarter, Greivis) Vasquez penetrated past Chris Duhon again, Howard shifted over to help again, and Lopez was left all alone again with Bryant toward the corner near Roger Mason instead of in the paint. Lopez scored for an 18-14 Hornets lead, and although Earl Clark was the Laker in best position to help Howard, he yelled at Bryant about it — prompting Bryant to yell back at Howard and gesture back.

One of the reasons Kobe became KOBE is that in his early years in the NBA he as on a team loaded with veterans who called him out on things — Brian Shaw, Robert Horry, Rick Fox, Eddie Jones, Derek Harper. Those guys didn’t let him slide on the little things, now he doesn’t let teammates slide on them.

But Kobe loves to roam and gamble on defense. Good on Howard for calling him out on it because Kobe’s defense, especially late in games, has gotten the Lakers in some trouble this season.

  1. paulhargis53 - Dec 7, 2012 at 2:16 PM

    Evidently, I don’t get to reply to foul in the manner in which I intended.
    2 postings, long in length are not posted.

    Like it matters anyhow. Foul, your being willfully obtuse. You wont agree even when you know I’m right.

    You have some vendetta because of how I treated lakerluver? Really?!
    Is he your brother? A friend?

    You can take your amateur psychoanalysis and stick it. You have no clue. Quote some more books for us, so we can see how smart you are. As matter of fact, I’d stick with that(and sesame street). You certainly don’t know jack about basketball, or its history, or what concentration of talent means.

    I’m sure you and your fanbase is awful tired of being the little brother to the Celtics, that’s too bad, you always will be.

  2. paulhargis53 - Dec 7, 2012 at 5:17 PM

    lounge! I like the “New”you!

    Hope this posts, 3 seperate posts to foul didn’t…..

    • loungefly74 - Dec 10, 2012 at 8:00 AM

      well…considering you are a Celtic’s fan…you have every right to bash the Lakers…and the fact they are playing like crap further fuels the agony.

      It’s a long season…we will see what happens.

  3. Foul Dwimmerlaik - Dec 7, 2012 at 5:28 PM

    @spthegr8: Thanks dude. But be careful with your compliments. Paully here might think that we’re one person. LOL!

    Yo, Paully. Here’s another rebuttal.

    During playoffs the present league has EIGHT teams playing for each conference, making that a total of SIXTEEN teams in the post season.

    During your team’s 11 in 13 run, the total number of teams (8 to 10) in the league is basically the equivalent of the number of teams involved in today’s league in ONE CONFERENCE during the POST SEASON. In today’s context, that’s like a team getting an automatic inclusion into the playoffs.

    With having only to play against 7 to 9 opponents who by the way get to play against around 5 to 7 times(?) in a season, the teams get to be VERY FAMILIAR with their opponents’ brand of play.

    The coaching staff back then have their homework done relatively easier. It’s more about how well the players execute their strategies rather than what strategy would be effective against a certain team.

    You retorted as well that back then, EACH TEAM IS STACKED like your proverbial SUPERFRIENDS, AVENGERS, and POWER PUFF GIRLS.


    Enlighten us then by giving us a run down of each team in at least one of those seasons with their respective roster. SHOW US through EMPIRICAL DATA that they are indeed stacked. Give us the name of these super players and how these players can be considered all-stars in today’s standards.

    Do you know the implication of what your argument is?

    You’re basically saying that ANY TEAM in the league back then are just as good if not better than today’s playoff-bound teams since those teams in the 60’s are considered shoo-ins for the present post season.

    So, how is YOUR reading comprehension?

    Prove to me that nematodes like you have brains after all.

  4. paulhargis53 - Dec 7, 2012 at 7:53 PM

    Not gonna do your research for you foul.
    Each team back then had several HOF players on them. As Casey Stengel was fond of saying….you could look it up.

    It’s not just hoops, all sports are watered down talent wise . NFL- Not enough franchise QBs , MLB- not enough frontline pitching.
    The NBA at 30 teams is ridiculous. Yep 16 teams make it, why?
    The bottom 2 seeds in each conference are pretty much worthless.
    Your arguments are week. But you can continue to have your opinion- I will just continue to be right.
    You won’t change my mind, nor I yours- from here on out its just verbal masturbation. Continue to blather away, I tire of trying to educate you.
    You should really stick to your books(and sesame street?) You certainly know very little about basketball.

  5. Foul Dwimmerlaik - Dec 7, 2012 at 8:33 PM

    You’re not doing any research for me, nematode.

    You’re supposed to do yours and make your case valid. Most especially since your point of argument doesn’t hold water… at all.

    What exactly makes my argument weak? My premise lies on the PROBABILITY of getting a championship between the NBA of the 60’s and contemporary NBA.

    You will continue to be right? LOL! Don Quixote indeed, like some friar in the pulpit during Imperial Spain in their colonies.

    Clearly delusional. Step out of that soap box of a throne. You’re too old to play make believe.

    Educate me? Really? Where did you finish college? What kind of college? Community? Did you finish college? If so, have you gotten your PhD’s yet?

    I know that sounded pompous but I’m giving you a dose of your own medicine.

    Goodness, I thought I was doing you a favor by referencing Sesame Street. I was stooping down your intellectual level so that you can catch up with what I have to say.

    I’m hurt, you should consider that my pro bono for the day just for you.

    Obviously, you can’t make a decent counter-argument and opted to cop out instead with your pathetic attempt of a rebuttal by giving me non-sequiturs.

  6. Foul Dwimmerlaik - Dec 7, 2012 at 8:55 PM

    Put it simply, getting an NBA Championship in contemporary times is much much more difficult than getting one during the 60’s.

  7. paulhargis53 - Dec 7, 2012 at 9:13 PM

    My rebuttals to you earlier in the day, not once, not twice, but. three times were not posted. I’m not going to continue posting the same stuff, just to prove a point, that you are so obviously going to continue to try and deflect.
    Neither of us is going to move off of our point, so why bother.

    Your posts drip with pomposity, why would you apologize? I know one thing, the big word truck certainly came to town.

    Good night Pancho.

    • Foul Dwimmerlaik - Dec 7, 2012 at 9:21 PM

      Cop out.

      Good catch on the Pancho though. Nice knowing that I influenced you to do some reading so you would know who Don Quixote is and the context behind his story.

      LOL! You just got yourself educated. Props to you. LMAO!

    • Foul Dwimmerlaik - Dec 7, 2012 at 9:27 PM

      By the way, it’s Sancho. Sancho Panza. Not Pancho.


  8. barkley4life - Dec 8, 2012 at 2:33 AM

    Courtney Lee was AWESOME tonight Lounge

    • loungefly74 - Dec 10, 2012 at 8:02 AM

      yes he was…

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 NBA Player Searches
  1. L. James (2154)
  2. D. Rose (2131)
  3. K. Bryant (1844)
  4. K. Irving (1743)
  5. J. Smith (1660)
  1. T. Thompson (1545)
  2. A. Davis (1536)
  3. T. Wroten (1409)
  4. J. Embiid (1346)
  5. K. Durant (1317)